Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

originally posted by: tanstaafl
So, by all means - which of my 4 statements do you disagree with?

That the inquiry requires a full House vote, it doesn't.

a reply to: thedigirati
It doesn't need to be.

Why do you think it's illegal for a committee to have an investigation?

Are house committees legally allowed to have investigations?

OPs "request" for a specific response format in this thread for discussion amounts to a loaded question.

That said:

1. The (whole) House does vote to Impeach which has been done in the past by a majority vote on Articles of Impeachment. Technically as long as a majority of the House takes a vote noting "X is Impeached" the concept of the (whole) House enacting the Impeachment power is met. After the (whole) House votes to impeach, the matter is passed to the Senate.

2. The (whole) House has voted on what Committees exist, how they will be administered, and what their authorities are by approving the Rules of the House of Representatives. By a majority action, this document empowers the various Committees and members to investigate and issue subpoenas.

3. Specifically, the Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress) has prepared a document that outlines the rules, procedures, practices and requirements for use of the impeachment power found at Impeachment and Removal - CRS:

From that document, pg. 17:

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-Members, such as when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests that the House may wish to consider impeachment of a federal judge, where an independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment, by message from the President, by a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury, or by petition.

Emphasis mine.

Anyone questioning the authority of the Library of Congress to make statements about Congressional matters should provide an explicit and superior source which denies that authority.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anyone questioning the authority of the Library of Congress to make statements about Congressional matters should provide an explicit and superior source which denies that authority.

Like the Twitter?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: schuyler
All of them. You are acting in a superior manner, which is not justified.

I am making a declarative statement, as if I know what I'm talking about, and challenging you/others who disagree to prove me wrong.

This is how debate works.

Ahhh... I figured you out... you have a huge stack of participation trophy's at home, and think they mean something, don't you?

That is not "how debate works." You do not take a superior attitude. Your so-called points have been adequately and completely refuted. And you CERTAINLY do not indulge in ad hominem attacks as you have just done. Your credibility s now down to zero. I can't see anyone taking you seriously.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anyone questioning the authority of the Library of Congress to make statements about Congressional matters should provide an explicit and superior source which denies that authority.

Like the Twitter?

HA! Lol

Nope. Not unless Thom Jefferson or Little Jimmy Madison have Twitter.

I disagree with your claim, specifically items #1 and #2 regarding your interpretation that any inquiry and any impeachment requires participation of the entire HoR. Clearly the Article in question makes no mention of activities precedent to impeachment, only that the full responsibility for impeachment resides with the HoR. Only the impeachment per se is mandated to require a vote of the full HoR.

How the HoR gets to the-point-of-impeachment is obfuscated, left to inherent powers of Congress as described in Article I Section 5 Paragraphs 2 &3 where Congress is free to make its' own rules within the confines of the Constitution as interpreted by Congress, obviously.

It's interesting that the founders foresaw a time might come when the houses of Congress were divided, and wisely chose to permit these differences and trust in future generations to resolve future issues. Now if you'd like to jump to the Amendments, we can discuss a number of egregious violations through congressional action in the HoR.

ganjoa

Are there seriously people suggesting that any member of the HoR can establish an impeachment inquiry with full enforcement? If so, then ANY member should be able to partake in the inquiry.

If no vote is expected to initiate it, then why did they vote 3 times prior to initiate an impeachment inquiry vs. Trump and failed miserably? Why bother voting then--they clearly knew there was precedent?

Do you REALLY REALLY believe this is due process and should become precedent (all prior impeachments had a vote to start the inquiry)?

Finally, Would you REALLY REALLY be defending this if the tables were turned? Ask yourself, because the tables will be turned one day and you should wish for fair and due process.

Stop kidding yourselves if you truly believe you would be fine with this approach if all the Ds were Rs and Donny was Biden

Forget the unspecifieds in the Constitution, Do you REALLY want this to be the process going forward?

A Member can initiate impeachment procedings in three different ways:

1. By declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initative.
2. By presenting memorial charges under oath.
3. By depositing an item into the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee.

Impeachment can be initated from external sources as well:

1. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommends the consideration of impeachment of a Federal judge.
2. An independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment
3. By message from the President.
4. By a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury.
5. By petition.

Impeachment and Removal, pg. 17

a reply to: Halfswede

The three previous resolutions brought for impeachment against were tabled by majority vote.

Due process? Absolutely. The procedure is following the Rules of the House. Again, the actual "trial" will be held in the Senate where both sides will have the right to counsel, call witnesses, etc. all the normal "trial" measures.

See above.

This IS the process and it has always BEEN the process. See impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

The House has the power to Impeach and the Senate tries the matter and acquits or removes. If it is the President, the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate. Balance of powers preserved.


IMO.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Byrd
Correct.

However, an investigation (which is carried out by committee, not the full House) is different than an impeachment. We are currently in the investigation phase.

-snip- another 'liar liar pants on fire' comment

I'm beginning to think there are a lot of people here who cannot read, much less with comprehension.

Did you read my OP? I think not, otherwise, you would have stated which of my 4 statements that you disagree with.

As you can see, if you re-read my statement, I agreed with all of your statements.

I then addressed the ones who were conflating impeachment with investigation.

So I'm not sure why you took the tone you did in the rest of that post.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

The link thinly answers some questions but, ..

Where in the Constitution is ""The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary"" ?

That's discussed in the first paragraph. The first sentence, I believe. It's to the right of the picture.

originally posted by: Notoneofyou

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

True.

However, where does it say that the dems can make # up, cry outrage, and use it as grounds for impeachment ?

...which is why there's a serious investigation by a bipartisan committee to find out if it's a pack of lies or if there's something going on that demands serious action.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

The link thinly answers some questions but, ..

Where in the Constitution is ""The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary"" ?

That's discussed in the first paragraph. The first sentence, I believe. It's to the right of the picture.

In The Constitution ? 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: xuenchen
Another question people are interested in is :

Where does the Constitution (and Court Rulings) give The House an exemption from Due Process ?

Not just for the current inquiry controversy, but for all Hearings and Subpoenas 😃

The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary.

For anyone interested in this, here's the House.gov page on it that explains what investigation committees do and what their powers are to act in the interests of legal matters: history.house.gov...

This would actually be "due process of the law" (the accusation is being investigated, not ignored, and the rules are those of US law.)

The link thinly answers some questions but, ..

Where in the Constitution is ""The House, in fact, operates as a branch of the judiciary"" ?

That's discussed in the first paragraph. The first sentence, I believe. It's to the right of the picture.

In The Constitution ? 😎

Are there pictures in your version of the Constitution?

Kewl.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Halfswede

The three previous resolutions brought for impeachment against were tabled by majority vote.

Due process? Absolutely. The procedure is following the Rules of the House. Again, the actual "trial" will be held in the Senate where both sides will have the right to counsel, call witnesses, etc. all the normal "trial" measures.

See above.
This IS the process and it has always BEEN the process. See impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

The House has the power to Impeach and the Senate tries the matter and acquits or removes. If it is the President, the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate. Balance of powers preserved.


IMO.

See bold. This has NOT been the process nor the precedent. They voted to commence the impeachment proceeding in your example with Clinton. Then voted on articles of impeachment. You just saying it wasn't so and repeating the MSM narrative doesn't make it true. It is literally there on record.

Again. The constitution does not spell out the details, but do you really want the ability to call/subpoena witnesses, attend hearings, etc. to be unilaterally controlled by one party of the house?

This isn't about Trump, this is about setting a terrible precedent and path forward. It WILL bite the other side if allowed to be precedent. Is 'By any means necessary' what you want for a legacy.

Honestly, it sounds like you really are fine with it. I just want to hear your ardent support for the process that happens in the Senate should it get there. It will definitely be done by the Constitution, but I will be watching for your support.

a reply to: Halfswede

You seemed to be concerned with the probability of the House using impeachment as a partisan tool in the future rather than any procedural disputes. The impeachment of Clinton was very clearly partisan. His lies about his infidelity were NOT national security issues, that was just the only thing that could be hung on him.

All due respect you have ZERO room to complain about anyone repeating the "MSM narrative" as you are marching down the White House's talking points. I have cited primary sources to support my claims, what are you doing in your post?

Let me answer part of that question for you: you're directly misrepresenting what I have routinely said that it was DUMB for the Dems to ignore previous practices.

Pretending like our govenment is not partisan? That party politics have not ruled the day for the last two decades or more if not longer?

Please.

I think it's dumb not to follow past protocol as I have said, and I think the Ukraine thing is a silly, weak place to start, but let's not pretend that all powers of Congress, the Presidency AND the Supreme Court haven't all been strongly tainted if not utterly corrupted by party politics already.

Do I want the House (or the Senate) to be able to abuse the investigative power? Nope, but that battle was lost in 2015.

Why in the world could you imagine I won't support the trial in the Senate as long as it's held Constitutionally? Although McConnell has certainly warped Constitutional intent on many occasions, the Chief Justice will be presiding in this case, so MItch's autocratic powers will be limited unlike when he unilaterally denied the previous President the Constitutional power to appoint judges and Justices and has since CROWED about doing so.

See you there.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
They can't ask for a vote without any evidence. Evidence must be collected through an investigation and then released prior to a vote. You don't just show up to the House one day and take an impeachment vote.

like the previous three votes?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
When I read the constitution it is my understanding that the impeachment INQUIRY can be done by these committees and that it's the VOTE on impeachment that will need the entire house.

Fail.

Another 'liar liar pants on fire' response.

If you want to participate, re-read the OP and try again.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
They can't ask for a vote without any evidence. Evidence must be collected through an investigation and then released prior to a vote. You don't just show up to the House one day and take an impeachment vote.

like the previous three votes?

Are you talking the resolutions duly brought by Rep. Green? Yep, the House voted to table, which is a required vote.

So ... you're upset now that the House did NOT vote to impeach Trump?

That's a confusing argument.